Scientific research refers to the research on the basis of health which has high ethical standards. Scientific research has been on the ethical standards that are founded and established by the researchers of the health institution. Scientific fraud is a behavior of misrepresentation or deception of the work that belongs to another person and also violates the code of ethical standards (Guillemin & Gillam, 2004). The impact of scientific fraud can include the loosing of the audience of a particular researcher. In this report, we will have a look on the one of the cases of scientific fraud. How the scientific fraud manipulates the policies of Australian Code for the Conduct of Research. Here the taken example is of the potential fraud case of Jonathan Pruitt who is the holder of one of the reputable Canada 150 Research Chairs. We will also find the ways to prevent the scientific fraud and the ways should have been taken previously to prevent the act.
Jonathan Pruitt is the holder of one of the prestigious and reputed Canada 150 Research Chairs. He has fabricated the irregularities of the data. The co authors of Jonathan Pruitt claimed that the data he provided to them contain the irregularities and the duplication of data. The two papers have been retracted that was co authored by Jonathan Pruitt. Jonathan Pruitt is considered to be as a star of McMaster University (McKenna & Gray, 2018). The scientist of McMaster University that is Jonathan Pruitt and also a holder of one of the reputed and prestigious Canada 150 Research Chairs now facing the inspection on the two papers which were claimed to have duplicity of the data in it and it manipulated the irregularities of data. This fraud case came in front of the media when the two peers analyzed and reviewed the study. The collaborators of the research also made the statement publically that the data is used in the papers are duplicate and also a misconduct of the regulations. His reputation has been torn and he is facing more retractions for all of his researches. He has included the duplicated data in his research.
Data duplication refers to copy the already built data and presentation whereas the primary data is the data that is found and collected by the raw data like interviews (Pennock, 2018). When a researcher, collects the data on its own by interviews or by studying any research that is called a primary or a genuine data collected. If a researcher ignores the code of conducts for the research and copy the data from another source and the studies that have already been done by someone else is the duplicate data. Here Jonathan Pruitt, misconduct the ethical standards of researchers by copying the data from another source and it’s a stealing of someone’s research. As a result Jonathan Pruitt has to retract the most of the papers of his studies. The prestigious job at McMaster University and the reputed Canada 150 Research Chairs are both on risk for him (Resnik, 2011). Now the policy of research integrity of Mc Master requires the administration or the management to initiate or to start the inquiry of investigation for the allegations academic misconduct.
Jonathan Pruitt also known as the spider man after his initiative of research by using a spider. He used the spider for his research and to test the evolution of the behavioral differences amid individuals. He wanted to test how individuals respond to the social and environmental pressures (Voarino et al., 2019). For this act, he also gained the attention of media. The major reason of attention of media to this act because it was considered as a relevant act for the better understanding of how the communities of organisms make them survive (Pennisi, 2020).
The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct refers to principle and the set of policies that have characteristics of honesty, transparency and have ethical research culture. It helps in building a framework for the high quality research which is conducted by the responsible research. It also helps in constructing the community trust and research credibility in the achievement of research (Bhat et al., 2017). The first and the foremost responsibility are to ensure or to provide the integrity and the honor lies with institutions and individual researchers. The code helps to provide the ethical way of doing research and to set the principles that should be followed by the researchers and institutions. There is a Guide of Managing and Investigating the Potential Breaches that helps in investigating the with the preferred outlines model of the institution.
There are many characteristics of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct such as honesty, transparency, respect, fairness, recognition and many more. Breach is also a part of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct. Breach refers to the researcher and the institution failed to follow all the principles of the code and fail to meet the responsibilities (Neuroskeptic et al., 2020). Breach can be single and there can be several breaches. In the case of Jonathan Pruitt, the principles that were breached from the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct are:
So, these were the two major principles which were misconduct by Jonathan Pruitt. We can use some measures to prevent the scientific fraud that are:
In this report, we explored and discussed about the scientific frauds that what the key factors which includes the scientific factor are. Then we read about the real fraud case of Jonathan Pruitt that how he duplicated the documents and misconduct the regularities of the Australian Code for the Research Conduct. There were many principles which were humiliated by Jonathan but for the understanding two have been explained that is honesty and transparency. The scientific fraud can be stop by taking some measures in the workplace.
McKenna, L., & Gray, R. (2018). The importance of ethics in research publications. Collegian, 25(2), 147-148.
Pennock, R. T. (2018). Beyond research ethics: How scientific virtue theory reframes and extends responsible conduct of research. In Cultivating Moral Character and Virtue in Professional Practice (pp. 166-177). Routledge.
Bhat, A., Shah, A., & Sherighar, S. G. (2017). Instructions to prospective authors by Indian biomedical journals: An opportunity to promote responsible conduct of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 12(2), 117-123.
Voarino, N., Couture, V., Mathieu-Chartier, S., Bélisle-Pipon, J. C., St-Hilaire, E., Williams-Jones, B., ... & Gauthier, P. (2019). Mapping responsible conduct in the uncharted field of research-creation: A scoping review. Accountability in research, 26(5), 311-346.
Dal-Ré, R., Bouter, L. M., Cuijpers, P., Gluud, C., & Holm, S. (2020). Should research misconduct be criminalized?. Research Ethics, 1747016119898400.
Pennisi, E. (2020). Prominent spider biologist spun a web of questionable data. Retrieved from https://science.sciencemag.org/content/367/6478/613.summary
Cassiman, A. (2019). Spiders on the World Wide Web: cyber trickery and gender fraud among youth in an Accra zongo. Social Anthropology, 27(3), 486-500.
Neuroskeptic.(2020). Social Spiders and Science Fraud. Retrieved from https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/social-spiders-and-science-fraud
Resnik, D. B. (2011). What is ethics in research & why is it important. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 1(10), 49-70.
Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative inquiry, 10(2), 261-280.
McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research. Ethics &Behavior, 11(3), 219-232.
Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Science Assignment Help
Proofreading and Editing$9.00Per Page
Consultation with Expert$35.00Per Hour
Live Session 1-on-1$40.00Per 30 min.
Doing your Assignment with our resources is simple, take Expert assistance to ensure HD Grades. Here you Go....